From: rukhsanakhan <irrualli>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:34:24 -0700

Neil,

Kids will find out soon enogh that good doesn't always prevail and that real problems are not easily solved. Why foist it on them in books?

I guess it depends on what you see the purpose of stories to be.

I would venture that the vast majority of kids are looking for entertainment when they read. Frankly, many chidren's authors (and authors in general) take themselves far too seriously. The driving force behind the book is some great theme, some grand argument they're making.

As far as I'm concerned if you want to be taken seriously, write non-fiction. Expand on those concepts within real life. Kids need non-fiction as much as they need fiction.

A friend of mine once said that you can tell if something is 'literary' if you can hold your nose and read it in a fake Swedish accent and have it still come across as serious. (He was joking!)

I can see books like The Chocolate War and their ilk as being valuable in a classroom setting perhaps because what it boils down to is a cautionary tale. "This children, is what can happen if you buck the universe, and so on." I really think that Cormier was an amazing writer. I hope that's coming across. But I wouldn't call this book entertaining. I can't imagine anyone, never mind a kid, sitting down and reading it for enjoyment.

And I strongly believe that most kids read for enjoyment.

As a writer, the only thing I'm trying to do is entertain. Tell a good story. Yet at the same time, I know for my own sake, that the story has to have a point. A theme. But theme, to me, is always secondary. In Chocolate War, I'd argue that theme is plot. And that's a mistake, as far as I'm concerned.

Giving kids only literature

I disagree. Giving children literature in which the problems get solved equips them with that most valuable entity--hope. Hope that even if the problem isn't solved this time, there are times when it does get solved. Or can be solved.

Also, look at the ending of Gilly Hopkins by K. Paterson. It was far from happy. I was really upset that Gilly didn't get to go back to Trotter, but then it suited the book fine. And slowly I came to realize it was the perfect ending. It was a consequence of her own actions. And I had to admit, albeit grudgingly, that K. Paterson was right to end it that way. That sense of yearning at the end is about as powerful as the sense of yearning at the end of Gone with the Wind. Where you want Rhett to come back, but know that he probably won't. Those are realistic endings that work in my opinion--and yet they're still hopeful.

As far as all the problems of this world that don't get solved--the miscarriages of justice and the oppressions--maybe the story's not finished yet. That's what I believe--but then that's another discussion and the realm of religion. *g*

Rukhsana
Received on Wed 29 Aug 2001 03:34:24 PM CDT